Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 11 2016

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Nike_at_the_Naturhistorisches_Museum_Front_5132.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nike, side figure at the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna --Hubertl 08:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Should be (much) tighter cropped --Berthold Werner 11:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Berthold Werner: , it´s intentional, because I made some different shots (not crops) with different lenses and focal distances to show the proportions and details of this lantern. --Hubertl 13:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment But here you have too much blurred background IMHO. --Berthold Werner 17:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment Ok, decline it, I will send it to CR. --Hubertl 18:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too much blured background. ;-) --Berthold Werner 06:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC) better now. --Berthold Werner 13:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Please other opinions. See comment before. --Hubertl 09:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, though I'd prefer 1/3 crop on the top --A.Savin 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    •  CommentA.Savin, Berthold Werner: Thanks for reviewing and advising, you both convinced me doing a crop! ✓ Done --Hubertl 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The background albeit pretty distracting, could be even more blurred --Moroder 22:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Moroder 08:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Cabo_Espartel,_Marruecos,_2015-12-11,_DD_03.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Cape Spartel, Tangier, Morocco --Poco a poco 12:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Halavar 12:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distortion of horizon have to be corrected. --Milseburg 21:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Assuming the first version of this image has no corrections applied, as it has exactly the same pixel count as the camera has, I would say the tilt is somewhat overcorrected, also the perspective correction seems to be somewhat overdone. But the earth is round, I would expect some slight curvature of the horizon if a wide angle lens is used. @Poco: I would take the first version, correct tilt and CA and would NOT crop so strong. -- Smial 09:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version Poco a poco 19:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 05:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Lmbuga 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK --A.Savin 11:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Owls_Head_Light_Left.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Owls Head Light --Ram-Man 00:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose horizon is tilted. --Milseburg 21:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Sorry about that. Ram-Man 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --和平奮鬥救地球 09:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted. -- Smial 11:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 05:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted. As Smial--Lmbuga 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • This isn't lens distortion, it is perspective (11mm!). This is a personal preference that has no bearing on the quality of the image. If someone wants a static centered photo, they can use this one. But this one has more dynamic "movement", a better composition. Both images are of high quality and it is the end user who ultimately picks which suits their needs. Ram-Man 11:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 Comment The tower is leaning. In most cases this is reason enough to decline. In some cases compositions with unusual perspectivic view can be supported as QIC, but here it looks simply crooked, sorry. -- Smial 09:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)